Elizalde v. Muniz

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING 24 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GAMALIEL ELIZALDE,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:16-cv-04607-WHO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION

v.
WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Respondent.

12
13

On January 25, 2018, petitioner Gamaliel Elizalde filed a motion for leave to file an

14

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus to include a now exhausted (but previously

15

unexhausted) claim based on People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal. 4th 665 (2016), and his confrontation

16

right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mot. and Decl. of Good

17

Cause for Leave to File Am. Petition (“Ryan Decl.”)(Dkt. No. 24). He previously requested to

18

stay this case so that he could return to state court and exhaust this claim; I denied that request.

19

Order Denying Stay (“Prior Order”)(Dkt. No. 16). He still returned to state court to present this

20

claim, which the state court denied. Ryan Decl. ¶ 3. Now he seeks permission to add this same

21

claim, which has now been exhausted.

22

Elizalde’s motion for leave is DENIED. When I denied his motion to stay, I stated that his

23

“new” claim was either “based on clearly established federal law, in which case it could and

24

should have been raised in a prior state habeas petition, or it is based on Sanchez’s interpretation

25

of state court evidentiary rules and their implications on the Confrontation Clause, in which case it

26

is ‘based’ on California law and is not the proper subject for federal habeas review.” Prior Order

27

at 1. The current motion is either an attempted work-around my prior order, or as respondent

28

pointed out in opposition, it is “essentially, a motion for reconsideration.” Opp’n at 1–2 (Dkt. No.

1
2
3

25). Either way, it is denied. The previous briefing schedule, Dkt. No. 23, remains in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 26, 2018

4
5
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2